Hi all… again! :D

I was discussing with other italian judges about the definition of “pattern” in Marked Cards.
Can a single marked card be considered to be a “pattern”?

A couple of example:
1) Alex has, in is deck, one foil Cryptic Command that's quite bent. He playes 4 (3 regular + 1 foil), but that is the only bent card in all his library.
2) Same as before, but there's only one copy of Cryptic Command instead of 4.

Can they be considered to be “patterns”?

Thanks for youre patiance and your help. :)

Edited Jacopo Strati (April 12, 2016 02:08:49 AM)

If you can identify any one (or more) cards by examining their sleeves,
you've got yourself a pattern. So, yes - a single card can definitely be
grounds for upgrading marked cards.

Edited Filip Haglund (April 12, 2016 02:10:49 AM)

I understand the same… If i can shuffle and cut the deck exactly a card (the foil one, that i know what it's) i'm sure it's Marked cards.
Them i must investigate a bit to choose if was or not cheating, but MC sure.

As usual I already discussed the matter with Jacopo, adding here my thoughts for the sake of global discussion :>

To the best of my knowledge the underlying philosophy is:

Should the player become aware of the marked cards (or the single marked card), can he exploit it to his advantage? If yes, upgrade.

If he does it's obviously USC - Cheating, what we consider here is the potential to do that. The upgrade serves the purpose to discourage this behaviour, making it a worse bet.

TL;DR:
Both scenarios lead to an upgrade IMAO (:D)

I agree with Andrea. I just would like to confirm our thoughts. :D

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

Should the player become aware of the marked cards (or the single marked card), can he exploit it to his advantage? If yes, upgrade.

You will hence upgrade in the case of a deck with 6 curved foils: 4 lands, a creature and another spell? the player can take advantage by knowing that a curved card is most likely a land. this apply to any case in which the distribution is not exactly the same between curved and not curved cards. Where is your limit in “can exploit”?

In my judgement :>

With a single marked card you can always say what that card is, when you notice it's marked.

With a single marked playset you can always say what that card is, when you notice it's marked.

With some marked playests it's all starting to blur into a “maybe”, i.e. it depends on what cards/I have to be there.

With all the lands marked, well that's a clear pattern again.

The question was about a single marked card, my answer is: “it is an upgrade” :)

Hi guys,

I went and re-read the IPG to make sure I wasn't missing anything before contributing. Based upon the philosophy / application of Marked Cards you guys have outlined above, can you give me an example of marked cards that is not an upgrade? It seems like all situations based on this philosophy would skew towards upgrading, and i'm sure there is a reason the default penalty isn't a GL.

* All sleeves are severely worn and have dirt spots on the back.
* 10 cards are damaged by shuffling, so when looking at the deck from the side, you can identify them. The cards are 2 basic lands, 2 other lands, 2 instants, 2 creatures, 2 planeswalkers.
* The deck contains some foil cards and some non foil cards. After 5 round sof play in a humid, warm room, the foils became more bent and became detectable. The foils are 2 basic lands, 2 other lands, 2 instants, 2 creatures, 2 planeswalkers.

Thank you for your response Dustin.

I personally know that I have skewed toward just giving the warning instead of the upgrades in situations that have been exactly described above, I just wanted some clarity :).

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

With a single marked card you can always say what that card is, when you notice it's marked.

This is correct and ironic–the more marked cards a player has, the more likely I am to issue a warning over a game loss.